17:18:02 * bdbaddog (n=[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-30-2.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-30-2.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has joined #scons
18:51:06 * stevenknight (n=[stevenkn@69.36.227.131](mailto:stevenkn@69.36.227.131)) has joined #scons
18:51:35 * [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel) is no longer marked as being away
18:51:48 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Hey, Steven...
18:53:59 <stevenknight> hi greg
18:54:26 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I hope Gary can make it; he sounded dragged out in his note.
18:54:30 <stevenknight> on the late shuttle tonight, so i turn into a pumpkin early :-(
18:54:36 <stevenknight> agreed re: Gary
18:55:22 <stevenknight> he said he'd updated the spreadsheet, but i only see his comments on early issues
18:56:05 * [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel) is still pulling up the spreadsheet
18:59:22 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Ah, Brandon is adding comments. But you're right; I don't see Gary's comments past the initial few.
19:00:34 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Brandon, are you here for the bug meeting?
19:00:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Or anyone else?
19:02:48 <Azverkan> I'm here
19:02:52 <Azverkan> was still typing
19:03:00 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Hey, Brandon...
19:03:10 <stevenknight> hi brandon
19:03:43 <Azverkan> hey
19:04:04 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Can you keep going, but split your attention here?
19:04:09 <Azverkan> yep
19:04:19 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, shall we proceed?
19:04:23 <stevenknight> since we have three + gary's comments, and the clock's ticking, shall we get started then?
19:04:26 <stevenknight> yes
19:04:35 <stevenknight> 2133:
19:05:01 <stevenknight> the more that i think about it, i'm on the fence like gary
19:05:44 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I think I'd move from INVALID to WONTFIX, but I still think it's not a bug
19:05:44 <stevenknight> but it's still pretty common and not unreasonable usage
19:06:00 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Really? What's the use case?
19:06:16 <stevenknight> hmm, well maybe not *common* per se
19:06:21 <stevenknight> just surprising
19:06:38 <stevenknight> you want to run a post-processing script after building the target
19:06:48 <stevenknight> the post-processing script is built locally in your tree
19:07:09 <stevenknight> you [AddPostAction](AddPostAction)() the script and expect that SCons will make sure it's built before it tries to execute it
19:07:16 <stevenknight> like it does with the regular Actions
19:07:39 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Yeah, but the next run, the post-processing doesn't get done since the command is already built.
19:07:36 <stevenknight> i guess it comes down to whether or not people should think an Action is an Action is an Action
19:07:54 <stevenknight> regardless of whether a Builder or [AddPostAction](AddPostAction) associates it with the target
19:08:21 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I think it's bad design, for sure
19:08:32 <stevenknight> [AddPostAction](AddPostAction)() in general? I agree
19:08:44 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> No, this use case, running a command as part of its own build.
19:08:50 <stevenknight> ah
19:09:04 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I just don't see any real reason to run the command just after building it and no other time.
19:09:05 <Azverkan> Feels more like a side effect of how builders are implemented that being a required feature to me
19:09:47 <stevenknight> I don't know, i do see people using it for things like unit test executables
19:10:03 <Azverkan> You have two types of these post actions, some that you want to always run and some that you only want to run after the executable changes
19:10:09 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> For unit tests, you can use a synthetic target
19:10:12 <stevenknight> but you can argue that's just because we do a lousy job with tests right now
19:10:27 <Azverkan> and in both cases they may or may not have real targets, but fake targets like the windows registry getting updated etc...
19:10:37 * stevenknight agrees with Azverkan
19:10:47 <Azverkan> I think the real fix is to make Alias() more interchangeable with File()
19:11:03 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> yes
19:11:05 <stevenknight> yes yes yes
19:11:07 <Azverkan> there are some cases where you have to make a File() that does not exist to work around limitations in Alias()
19:11:21 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> yes
19:11:41 <stevenknight> okay, i can see WONTFIXing this in favor of a more comprehensive solution involving being able to use Alias
19:11:48 <stevenknight> as both a source and a real Dependency
19:11:53 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I'll go for that.
19:12:04 <stevenknight> like Brandon said
19:12:16 <stevenknight> okay, done
19:13:00 <stevenknight> I'll open a new one to track the Alias-wherever-you-can-use-File enhancement
19:12:51 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2134
19:13:03 <stevenknight> 2134:
19:13:45 <stevenknight> Greg, did you have a particular 2.x feature in mind to make this easier?
19:13:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2133 spinoff: "Synthetic Targets"
19:13:55 <stevenknight> oh, wait, just saw it in your comment
19:13:57 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 'attribute'
19:14:30 <stevenknight> gotta transfer buses, expect short disconnect
19:14:40 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
19:16:35 * stevenknight (n=[stevenkn@69.36.227.135](mailto:stevenkn@69.36.227.135)) has joined #scons
19:16:41 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I just don't know if it's worth trying to implement in the 1.x timeframe if we're just going to reengineer it in 2.x, especially since 1.x is already getting so full.
19:16:47 <stevenknight> and we're back...
19:17:11 <stevenknight> yeah, 1.x is definitely full
19:17:19 <stevenknight> no one's beating down the doors for this
19:17:25 <stevenknight> let's go ahead and push it out to 2.x
19:17:30 <stevenknight> (assume we're still on 2134)
19:17:37 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> works for me (yes)
19:17:57 <stevenknight> okay, 2134, 2.x, p3 (?)
19:18:10 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> yes, issues@scons
19:18:25 <stevenknight> 2135: consensus 1.0.x p2
19:18:34 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
19:18:41 <stevenknight> 2136: consensus 1.x p2
19:18:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
19:19:00 <stevenknight> 2137: consensus 1.0 p3
19:19:08 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> yes, but who?
19:19:49 <stevenknight> guess it partly depends on how soon we push out 1.0
19:20:12 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I think it should be within a week; it's aged enough.
19:20:12 <stevenknight> i'll take it, unless you have any text you've already started
19:20:22 <stevenknight> agree re: aged enough
19:20:31 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> no, in fact, I think I'm too close to it
19:20:27 <stevenknight> 2137: 1.0 p3 stevenknight
19:20:38 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
19:21:01 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2138
19:21:12 <stevenknight> 2138: consensus 1.0.x p2
19:21:13 <stevenknight> me
19:21:22 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> ok, works
19:21:39 <stevenknight> 2140: changed my mind, 2.x p4
19:21:50 <stevenknight> move it up if someone actually comes up with a good interface for it
19:21:58 <stevenknight> (the underlying hook, i mean)
19:22:10 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> okay
19:22:37 <stevenknight> 2141: 1.0.x p2, me
19:22:40 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2141, consensus
19:22:47 <Azverkan> 2140: I'd think that the hook would probably be driven more by distributed build requirements like [IncrediBuild](IncrediBuild) than the actual submitted bug
19:23:18 <stevenknight> 2140: agree that that's a more compelling reason than this particular use case
19:23:37 <stevenknight> but someone still has to care enough to pony up the code
19:24:05 * Azverkan is at the moment I'm worried about the GIL not getting fixed in Py3k
19:24:10 <stevenknight> 2142: consensus dup
19:24:35 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2142, I added a comment to 2132 asking that he takes makes sure it uses env[ENV]
19:24:29 <stevenknight> 2143: consensus 1.x p2 david
19:24:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2143, done
19:24:47 <stevenknight> cool, thanks
19:24:52 <stevenknight> (re: 2142)
19:25:36 <stevenknight> 2144: Brandon, can you say more about the Windows API issue at work here
19:26:01 <Azverkan> It's probably more complicated than we want to spend on it
19:26:01 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 2144, I agree with Steven's comment, but we should ask Benoit about it.
19:26:16 <Azverkan> But basically Ctrl-C event and job trees is the root of the issue
19:26:31 <stevenknight> on the discussion or on actually fixing it (or working around it) in SCons?
19:26:32 <Azverkan> Unix sends signals to subprocesses differently than windows does
19:26:39 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Is the original issue from Windoze?
19:26:46 <stevenknight> yes, IIRC
19:26:58 <Azverkan> yeah
19:27:16 <Azverkan> it gets even nastier if you have a scons running inside a scons running inside a scons or something like that
19:27:16 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Then it looks like Brandon is volunteering.... {;-}
19:27:33 <Azverkan> I dont think it's something we can ever fix on the command line without an IPC layer
19:28:11 <Azverkan> but the named event hack I did in the past worked well enough that I could submit a patch
19:28:05 <stevenknight> basically something else wraps and just handles the interrupt
19:28:16 <stevenknight> and passes word in a controlled way to the back-end SCons process?
19:28:50 <Azverkan> in my case we just modified the gui to send the named event instead of the Ctrl-C or the Ctrl-Break which both have bugs (and different kinds)
19:29:04 <Azverkan> Ctrl-C corrupts scons and Ctrl-Break corrupts subtools
19:29:16 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Ah, Windo$e...
19:29:39 <stevenknight> and i assume the wrapper that handles the Ctrl-{C,Break} needs to be a separate task, not just a thread?
19:29:50 <Azverkan> yes and scons cannot be a child of that task
19:30:00 <Azverkan> so you have to spawn a task parented by the parent of scons
19:30:12 <stevenknight> what fun!
19:30:19 <Azverkan> detach the console from scons and reattach the console to that
19:30:27 <Azverkan> its probably not really worth the effort
19:30:32 * [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel) wonders about Steven's idea of fun
19:30:48 <Azverkan> I'd put it off until we think about releasing 2.x
19:31:02 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Future? Or wontfix?
19:31:11 <stevenknight> future
19:31:17 <Azverkan> future because you will get new bugs otherwise
19:31:21 <Azverkan> over and over
19:31:31 <stevenknight> Brandon, could you add a write up describing the above so it gets captured?
19:31:32 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> ok, what priority then?
19:31:39 <Azverkan> yeah
19:31:44 <stevenknight> thanks
19:31:46 <stevenknight> i'd say p2
19:31:56 <stevenknight> agree it sounds like a lot of effort
19:32:06 <stevenknight> but it goes to the heart of the "correct build" priority
19:32:07 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> ... I was thinking p3 but I'll go with p2
19:32:17 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> ah, good point
19:32:25 <stevenknight> okay, 2144, future, p2
19:32:29 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
19:32:48 <stevenknight> 2145: research, me
19:33:13 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> ok, done
19:33:29 <stevenknight> 2146: anytime
19:33:36 <stevenknight> me if no one else volunteers
19:33:44 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
19:33:59 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I think you're the only one who understands it
19:33:52 <stevenknight> re: 2146
19:34:45 <stevenknight> if we scrap the surrogate stuff, what about generatiing the output with scripts modeled after the test/*.py infrastructure?
19:35:12 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> say more?
19:35:52 <stevenknight> all of the in-line <scons_example> things
19:36:18 <stevenknight> get turned into a separate self-contained script based on the same API that the test/*.py tests use
19:36:41 <stevenknight> generating the example output becomes a matter of running some script like runtest.py
19:36:51 <stevenknight> that captures the output at the right step
19:37:32 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I'm not sure... It still seems awkward. Maybe you should start a thread on the dev list.
19:37:43 <stevenknight> your ideas about making it a more integrated part of the packaging build are on target regardless of this internal implementation detail
19:37:56 <stevenknight> okay, i can do that
19:38:10 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> ok, I'll look for your message
19:38:22 <stevenknight> shall we try to make some progress on 2006H2?
19:38:29 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> How about that? We finished the current issues!
19:38:39 * stevenknight rejoices
19:38:36 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Yes, onward
19:38:46 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> only a few of those left now...
19:39:13 <stevenknight> cool
19:39:23 <stevenknight> net lag pulling up the spreadsheet...
19:39:25 <stevenknight> there we go
19:39:35 <bdbaddog> :)
19:39:36 <stevenknight> where did we leave off?
19:39:42 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 1437 is first
19:39:55 <stevenknight> 1437: consensus dup
19:39:57 <stevenknight> hey bill
19:40:23 <bdbaddog> Good evening. Gotta run in a few,but here for a few.
19:40:36 <stevenknight> cool, thanks
19:40:39 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Hey, Bill
19:40:42 <bdbaddog> timely 1437 is related to email thread Greg and I have been sharing.
19:40:49 <stevenknight> on 2006H2
19:40:49 <stevenknight> 1438: i
19:40:50 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> yep
19:40:55 <stevenknight> try again
19:41:10 <stevenknight> 1438: I'm coming around to Bill's suggestion of 2.x and redoing this
19:42:09 <stevenknight> I'm starting to think I can kill off [VariantDir](VariantDir) by making the repository support more flexible
19:42:20 <stevenknight> let you really stack directories arbitrarily
19:42:33 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I tried to go there once; you shot me down.
19:42:45 <stevenknight> yep, i was wrong
19:42:51 <bdbaddog> sounds like it would support very complicated schemes, but would it be easy to to the simple case?
19:43:33 <stevenknight> i think so
19:43:49 <bdbaddog> worth a wiki page to discuss ?
19:43:54 <bdbaddog> and/or email thread.
19:43:57 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I'd certainly like to see a proposal
19:44:00 <stevenknight> sounds like it
19:44:16 <Azverkan> I'm also of the opinion that the current approach needs to replaced and since that would potentially require scripts to be updated it would have to be a 2.x feature
19:44:17 <stevenknight> probably research, p3, me then
19:44:30 <bdbaddog> ok guys. gotta run. sorry to be a short timer tonight.
19:44:37 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> your research? That's 'anytime'
19:44:48 <stevenknight> :-)
19:45:21 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I'm not kidding; I plan to manipulate the ordering so 'anytime' always sorts just after the current release.
19:45:35 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Er, the next immediate release.
19:45:47 <stevenknight> right, but i'm actually somewhat serious too
19:46:02 <stevenknight> i've adopted your terminology and agree that "research" should be higher priority
19:46:10 <stevenknight> for reclassification
19:46:18 <stevenknight> even if i'm not consistent about doing that
19:46:37 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Hmmm, ok, then which do you mean?
19:46:41 <stevenknight> so i'd rather see this as "research" so the proposal has at least a shot at getting written up sooner rather than later
19:46:53 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I'll go for that
19:46:56 <stevenknight> if only because I have it staring at me reminding me i haven't done it yet...
19:47:08 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> {;-}
19:47:18 <stevenknight> okay, 1438: research, sk
19:47:22 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> done
19:47:42 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 1439, toolchain
19:47:49 <stevenknight> done
19:47:55 <stevenknight> (I could go with you on invalid, too)
19:48:19 <stevenknight> 1442: toolchain / dup 1437
19:48:23 <stevenknight> ?
19:48:36 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> yes, invalid, I was thinking of another issue
19:49:19 <stevenknight> okay, just to be clear: 1439: invalid ?
19:49:23 <Azverkan> not convinced that 1439 is invalid
19:49:32 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> 1439, yes
19:49:38 <Azverkan> but a decision that the project sure either make for or against
19:50:00 <Azverkan> seems like the current approach is that it is not supported
19:50:52 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> uh, wait, 1439 has been already taken care of
19:51:11 <Azverkan> yeah there is like 10 in a row I think
19:51:14 <stevenknight> whoa, hang on, i already have a comment on here from July 1 saying this was getting closed
19:51:46 <stevenknight> but it looks like I didn't change the status
19:52:06 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> Yes, it's marked invalid; it's still just in the spreadsheet.
19:52:06 <stevenknight> yeah, we've been through a bunch of these already
19:52:23 <stevenknight> ah, we only have 7 left from 2006H2
19:52:25 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> next is 1490
19:52:48 <stevenknight> damn, i'm down to the last minute
19:52:55 <stevenknight> same time next week?
19:53:00 <stevenknight> we obviously won't have gary
19:53:15 <stevenknight> brandon, is this time good for you -- it's really helpful to have you here
19:53:48 <Azverkan> the earliest I get home by is 7:00PM west coast
19:54:24 <Azverkan> the time we have now is best for me so far
19:54:34 <stevenknight> okay, sounds good
19:54:35 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> You can certainly join a little late, but would some other time be better?
19:55:02 <Azverkan> my work hours are more or less demand driven
19:55:07 <stevenknight> if so, say the word
19:55:13 <Azverkan> not really
19:55:20 <stevenknight> i'll assume same time (19h00 PDT) next week unless i hear otherwise
19:55:27 <Azverkan> I'm other completely busy or free by 1900
19:55:35 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> OK, then we demand that you're here next time {;-}
19:55:30 <stevenknight> ....and i'm at my stop
19:55:32 <stevenknight> later...
19:55:35 * stevenknight has quit ("Leaving")
19:56:19 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> I've got to go, too; le Tour de France calls...
19:56:25 <[GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel)> cul
19:56:34 * [GregoryNoel](GregoryNoel) has been marked as being away
21:55:33 * bdbaddog (n=[bdeegan@adsl-71-131-30-2.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net](mailto:bdeegan@adsl-71-131-30-2.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net)) has left #scons